RationalWiki's 2019 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Information icon.svg The 2018 moderator election has started! We are electing 6 moderators and 2 alternatives to serve in 2019. Nominate users here and read their campaign slogans here!
Balloons.svg

Fun:Barmyology

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Barmyarmyology

Barmyology is the study of barmyness, named for the term used to describe people who find the Bible to be a solid source of scientific knowledge. It should not be confused with Blarneyology, which is the art of licking magical Irish rocks.

Barmyology is concerned with tracing the lineage of Earthly life which is believed by barmy people to be created by God during Creation Week, and corresponds in some functional aspects to the secular concept of species. However, unlike species concepts which are based on evidence, the barmy barrier is inviolable, as other barmies do not evolve from earlier barmies.[1]

As there is no evidence for barmyology, barmyologists avoid using the Latin term Q.E.D. (what was to be demonstrated). Barmyologists instead use the term "That's barmy!" when something is seen as being consistent with barmyology. Evolutionists often respond in the same way, thus providing evidence for the validity of barmyology. Barmyologists enjoy massive support among English cricket fans who've gone so far as to form the Barmy ArmyWikipedia's W.svg in support of barmyology's claims.

Jonathan Sarfati writes regarding the Biblical kinds of organisms:

Based on the Biblical criterion for kinds, creationists deduce that as long as two creatures can hybridize with true fertilization, the two creatures are (i.e. descended from) the same kind. Also, if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they are all members of the same kind. The hybridization criterion is a valid operational definition, which could in principle enable researchers to list all the kinds. The implication is one-way—hybridization is evidence that they are the same kind, but it does not necessarily follow that if hybridization cannot occur then they are not members of the same kind (failure to hybridize could be due to degenerative mutations). After all, there are couples who can’t have children, and we don’t classify them as a different species, let alone a different kind.[2]

We can deduce the following from Sarfati's remarkable insights:

  1. Things that can interbreed are of the same kind
  2. Things that can't interbreed may also be of the same kind
  3. That's barmy!

Barmyology, as a model of origins, complements the Linnaean taxonomic system which is also based on the Biblical view of origins. Barmyology provides a consistent and barmy alternative to the evolutionary system of cladistics, in much the same way that the Bible, if read the right way, suggests that the need for vaginas and penises is obviated by stork theory.

History[edit]

The term barmyology was coined in 1941 by Frank Marsh from the English words barmy (insane) and ology (a branch of knowledge).

Barmyology was resurrected in 1990 by Kurt Wise for use as the unit of creation of his discontinuous biosystematical system. That same year at the Second International Conference on Creationism in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Walter ReMine introduced additional sub-terms to help clarify barmyological discourse: holobarmy, monobarmy, apobarmy, and polybarmy.[3] Scientologists may invent words to describe their curious pseudoscience, but their words are just made up, not like Barmyological words which God pours in to the ears of creation scientists while they sleep.

Barmyological Terms[edit]

  • Holobarmy: A Holobarmy is a grouping that contains all barmyologists related by cribbing from each other, not excluding any. For example, all barmyologists form a holobarmy, meaning all ideas of all attendees of all creationists' conferences are descended from a single creation event, that of the story of Adam and Eve, and will always be fully and completely barmy.
  • Monobarmy: A monobarmy is used to refer to a single barmyologist working in isolation due to their being unable to find work in academia. Barmyologists often find themselves Expelled due to their unwillingness to blindly accept Darwin's crazy claims. A barmyologist submitting an article for peer review is likely to find it would be rejected by the establishment who wish to preserve the status quo and their fat salaries. This is why barmyologists prefer to post their work on alternative publications, such as Conservapedia, Answers in Genesis, blog posts and post-it notes.
  • Apobarmy: An apobarmy is a group of barmyologists. Initially barmyologists were described as a congregation, but it was felt that this gave the false impression that barmyology was a religious belief with no scientific support beyond that afforded by the Unified Theory of Goddidit.
  • Polybarmy: A polybarmy is a deceitful animal created by Satan. Polybarmies often have characteristics that would appear to relate them to other species, thus invalidating the core claims of barmyology. Barmyologists have petitioned to have polybarmies exterminated or totally ignored in order to preserve the obvious truth of barmyology.

Three additional terms introduced by Wise:

  1. Archaebarmy: An archaebarmy is the originally-created individual(s) of a given holobarmy. For instance, Adam and Eve form the archaebarmy of the holobarmy of humanity.[4] Archaebarmy should not be confused with Archaeopteryx, which according to barmyologists was a pervert bird that enjoyed dinosaur cosplay.
  2. Neobarmy & Paleobarmy: A neobarmy is the living population of a given holobarmy, whereas a paleobarmy represents older forms of a given holobarmy. Neobarmys have undergone genetic degradation from their perfectly created forms (archaebarmy) and so may differ from their paleobarmys in notable ways. For example, the neobarmy of Humanity has a much shorter lifespan and greater prevalence of genetic diseases than the Human paleobarmy (e.g. Adam lived for 930 years[5]: and his children could interbreed without fear of deformity, but not without having people remark "Dude, she's your sister? Ew!!" [6]
  3. Blarnybarmy: Bork bork!

Scientific basis of barmyology[edit]

Barmyology is supported by an increasing number of dentists, physicists and pastors. In addition to this support, barmyology does not rely on theories and deceptive evidence gathered by fallible humans. Its core tenets can be summed up as follows:

  1. Barmyology is compatible with requires the solid understanding of the Bible
  2. The Bible (KJV in particular) is the infallible word of God.
  3. God would not lie, so therefore barmyology cannot be a lie.
  4. That's barmy!

Evolutionist view[edit]

Evolutionary scientists criticize Barmyology, simply because it lacks rigorous testing and fails to produce any peer-reviewed scientific research. Barmyology is unfairly regarded as pseudoscience by non Bible-believing scientists. However their claim has been rejected by creation scientists who've provided the following evidence in support of barmyology:

Bible.JPG
Do you trust the word of God, or the word of fallible and deceitful scientists?

Atheistic evolutionist Richard Lenski claimed to demonstrate bacteria evolving in his lab, but his work has been strongly criticized by noted statistician and educator Andrew Schlafly. Schlafly offered the following response to Lenski's findings:

"Lenski" (you can't even post in your own real name), you have to be more substantive than that if you want to persuade anyone. I looked at many of your edits before reverting them and you claim that faith isn't an uniquely Christian concept, so anyone with an open mind can see that you're trying to spread socialist propaganda. You are in complete denial that that chivalry was and is an ideal for all to strive for. It is very effective in reducing and eliminating friction, insults, hard-feelings, and accidents, not to mention that it prevents homosexuality. Nobody seriously doubts that opposition to chivalry breeds a lack of respect and a disdain for hard work. Don't you see how sometime can estimate when the truth when someone else conceals it? Why don't you object to how Richard Dawkins called for the arrest of the Pope?--Andy Schlafly 03:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Lenski declined Schlafly's request for evidence, no doubt because liberal scientists are not used to being asked straight questions. Creationist lawyers, mechanical engineers, and Internet support desk workers unanimously dismissed Lenski's findings.

That's Barmy! (boardgame)[edit]

Answers in Genesis has produced a board game to teach children to debate with atheistic scientists. In this game there should be a minimum of three players. One player adopts the role of the creation scientist, with the remaining players acting as liberal atheistic scientists. In each round the atheists draw a Fallacy Card to be read aloud. The creation scientist follows by drawing a handful of Tract Cards — each one containing a biblical quote. The tract cards are read aloud until the atheist players leave the game. If the atheist players refuse to concede defeat by leaving the game the creation scientist player is allowed to tip over the board and claim victory by yelling "That's barmy!"

See also[edit]

Necker cube.svg Tired of laughing? RationalWiki has a slightly more serious article about Baraminology.
  • Bible The one true source of moral scientific knowledge
  • Baraminology A related theory fact

References[edit]

  1. See Genesis
  2. See Genesis
  3. See Genesis
  4. See Genesis
  5. See Genesis
  6. See Genesis